↓ Skip to main content

Coevolutionary analyses require phylogenetically deep alignments and better null models to accurately detect inter-protein contacts within and between species

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coevolutionary analyses require phylogenetically deep alignments and better null models to accurately detect inter-protein contacts within and between species
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0677-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aram Avila-Herrera, Katherine S. Pollard

Abstract

When biomolecules physically interact, natural selection operates on them jointly. Contacting positions in protein and RNA structures exhibit correlated patterns of sequence evolution due to constraints imposed by the interaction, and molecular arms races can develop between interacting proteins in pathogens and their hosts. To evaluate how well methods developed to detect coevolving residues within proteins can be adapted for cross-species, inter-protein analysis, we used statistical criteria to quantify the performance of these methods in detecting inter-protein residues within 8 angstroms of each other in the co-crystal structures of 33 bacterial protein interactions. We also evaluated their performance for detecting known residues at the interface of a host-virus protein complex with a partially solved structure. Our quantitative benchmarking showed that all coevolutionary methods clearly benefit from alignments with many sequences. Methods that aim to detect direct correlations generally outperform other approaches. However, faster mutual information based methods are occasionally competitive in small alignments and with relaxed false positive rates. Two commonly used null distributions are anti-conservative and have high false positive rates in some scenarios, although the empirical distribution of scores performs reasonably well with deep alignments. We conclude that coevolutionary analysis of cross-species protein interactions holds great promise but requires sequencing many more species pairs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Student > Master 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 27%
Computer Science 7 9%
Chemistry 7 9%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,822,669
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,044
of 7,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,042
of 267,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#79
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.